Main Engine Cut Off - T+335: Auriga Space (with Winnie Lai, Founder and CEO)

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

Founder and CEO of Auriga Space, Winnie Lai, joins me to talk about their electromagnetic launch infrastructure and the path she sees for Auriga across space and defense markets. And yes, we talk about whether this kind of alternative launch architecture is a good fit for Earth, or a better fit for pretty much every other rock in the solar system. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 32 executive producers—Steve, Ryan, Matt from Built, Russell, Joel, David, Kris, Joakim, Fred, Pat, Matt, Theo and Violet, Natasha Tsakos, Donald, Warren, Miles O’Brien, Will and Lars from Agile, Frank, Jan, Tim Dodd (the Everyday Astronaut!), Josh from Impulse, Stealth Julian, Lee, Joonas, The Astrogators at SEE, and four anonymous—and hundreds of supporters. Topics Auriga - Electromagnetic Launch for Space and Defense Auriga Space raises $6M to shoot rockets off an electromagnetic launch track | TechCrunch The Show Like the show? Support the show on Patreon or Substack! Email your thoughts, comments, and questions to [e-mail] Follow @WeHaveMECO Follow @[e-mail] on Mastodon Listen to MECO Headlines Listen to Off-Nominal Join the Off-Nominal Discord Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhere Subscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off Newsletter Artwork photo by SpaceX Work with me and my design and development agency: Pine Works

managing cutoff, I'm Anthony Colangelo, and I've got an interesting show for you today. We'll be talking with Winnie Lye of Auriga Space. She founded this after leaving spin launch, among other places, and they're working on electromagnetic launch capabilities. They've got a bunch of different ways that they think they could apply this. Hypersonic testing, obviously, in the near term, in space. There are some interesting use cases from the moon or even between orbits. The very much murkier one that I get into a lot with her here is the actual use case down to the here on Earth. She was very open to my questions and skepticism in that department is a little bit more futuristic of a show than I typically do on Miko, but I do think this is an interesting

company because a lot of their tech approach fits better with some near-term markets than something like Spin Launch did. Still has some of the pitfalls for the longer-term markets and trade-offs that were seeing play out in real time about how good are reusable first stages and where are the problems to be solved in space technology. But I always appreciate somebody that's willing to come on talk with somebody who is bought in on certain parts of their mission and has skepticism in other parts. So I think it's a really interesting conversation with me and Winnie. So without further ado, let's give you a call. Winnie, thank you so much for joining me on Miko.

I'm excited about this one. There's a little outside of my typical lane. It's a little more futuristic feeling than most of my shows, but I'm excited that you're here with us. Absolutely. Well, thanks for having me, Anthony. Good to meet you. We need, I'll be honest. You've got some legwork to do with me because I'm somebody that,

is generally skeptical of the alternative launch stack. Many of my listeners know I'm not a fan of air launch. We'll obviously talk about your former placement spin launch. So I've got struggles versus reusable first stages, but there's a reason that you're also on the show because typically I would be like, let's not talk about the steam rocket or whatever. But there's a lane here that I think is really interesting to pull on

in terms of some of the overlaps between the things that are in front of you in the near term, long term, medium term, and trying to understand the general tech stack you're after, I think is important for the future. But let's start with a little story time. Tell me about where you came from, what you were working on, and how you ended up where you're at now.

Sure, absolutely. They're happy to talk about my background and how I got to the founding of Riga. So, first of all, I'm a space nerd, right? just like probably everyone on this, who's listening to this show. So I studied engineering physics in college for that reason because I've always wanted to do something in space. But that being said, I graduated during the dot-com boom.

So, you know, myself, along with like many of my classmates, worked in tech. I started my first company right out of college in tech billing health tech software platform and then pivoted to financial tech, where I was chief operating officer of a company where we scaled from zero to $150 million in annual revenue in five years. And then after that, I decided, you know what, like I've had two acquisitions in tech. I'm done. I want to go do something that's just more meaningful and also just like that aligns better with my passion. So I joined Spin Launch in the very early days. And it was a ride, right?

I love the work that we were doing there. And for me, like, I spent three years at Spin Launch helping build a team. Also, you know, supported the S-Up Orbital accelerator development. And my, I guess my experience at Spin Launch, like, directly translated to, you know, my work that I'm doing now at Arriga. But, you know, a lot of that was like, hey, at Spin Launch, I learned how to work with the government, learned how to do agile development of hardware systems. And also more importantly, just kind of learn about the space industry and also just the challenges that satellite companies are still facing, you know, despite the advancements that SpaceX has

made. Getting to space is still expensive. And in fact, SpaceX, I looked at my charts from a few years ago and like the price of like ride share on a dollar per kilogram. basis has actually gone up, right? Started off at around like $5,000 per kilogram, and I think now they're over $7,000 per kilogram with a multi-year wait time.

And for me, I'm a believer in the lunar and also space and economy. And for that to happen, like we need like the roads. We need to build more highways to space. And that's why like I'm very passionate about like alternative ways of getting to space. And that's why I found it, Erega, about three years ago now.

Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong that I think if, you know, you ask all of us 10 years ago when we were being nerds about the space industry of, you know, there's so much talk about the cost of launch dropping. The cost of launch dropped, the price of launch has not, you know, and there's no reason that SpaceX should be selling their launches for less because no one is putting competitive pressure on them. But the fact that we are stuck in that cycle for 10 years, I think is alarming and also just not healthy.

we do need more pressure on SpaceX generally, right? Like, they're doing awesome things. They are obviously having amazing engineering team, amazing tech stack. But if you are interested in the 10, 50, 100 year future of spaceflight and the economy in space, it's not healthy if it's just one party doing everything. You know, it's as unhealthy as it was in the early 2000s when we were all worried about that. So, all right, so give me the founding story a little bit deeper, right? You were coming out of spin launch.

Was there particular things that you had your mindset on? Because it's not entirely different sake in the market, but obviously the stack that Orega is working with, it contrasts a lot with the things that we all were slinging arrows at spin launch for back in the day. Absolutely. So I guess for those of you who are not familiar with the spin launch concept, involves the name implies like spinning a small rocket in a centrifuge

and then launching it. out of out of the tube. So from that standpoint, like what I've learned, you know, it's been launch is like, hey, like great concept. But the challenge had to always been like, hey, developing and building a payload, that can withstand two, like, acceleration in two different axes, right? One in the centripetal direction during us spinning. And then after that, like, you know, on exit, you have the tangential, you know, acceleration. And that's, it's challenging to, build payloads that can survive high G forces in multiple directions. So that's why at EREGA, like we decided to take on a linear acceleration approach. Right. So just like how in

artillery, we accelerate projectiles at very high speeds, at very high Gs, like all in one direction, right? So that was a premise behind like the founding of Eriga. And we decided that we wanted to take on an acceleration approach in one direction. But again, like, you know, we're not trying to do single stage to orbit. You know, like, that's not us, right? On this planet, right? No, and also, like, not now. Maybe like some distant future, but like, no, no, we're focused. The first product. Yeah. So we're focused on replacing the first stage of a traditional rocket with a ground-based solution. And, like, the ultimate, goal here is to make space launch more efficient, right? With a rocket, you're having to carry all the fuel,

all the propellant with with you as you travels through space and also through the atmosphere. So, you know, at the goal of Erega here is to make space launch more efficient by eliminating some of the onboard propellant requirement. Now, how we're getting there is going to be interesting because like getting to space is very difficult. It's going to require a lot of capital. It's also going to require a lot of development time. And for a business, we get to figure out how we get there

while minimizing the amount of external capital we raise. So we're a venture-backed companies, so we have investors. But at the same time, like, you know, we can't just rely on investors to fund the full development our space launch capabilities. So initially, like, we're taking the technology that we've developed today

and applying that for some defense applications. So initially, we are commercializing our technology for high speed and hypersonic testing, both a ballistic as well as recoverable test capability, which is something that is highly sought after right now due to just a lack of testing, affordable testing facilities. So we're in that and we got some contracts with various groups within the Department of Defense to advance that technology and also to commercialize it. And then concurrently, we are also using our technology for counter UAAS as well as missile defense applications. So these are applications that we can tackle in the near term. And it's going to

further fun the development as well as the yeah as just funded development for space launch capabilities and and that's the way we should think about it is that you know i mean your URL is orrigospace.com not origa defense.com so space is space is the goal but you're you're saying that because of the tech tree that you have to work through you're starting in the defense market as the as the primary market and then knowing that you're laying the bricks for a space future or is space nearer term than that, and it's going to be something in tandem. Well, for sure. And I think the analogy I like to use is, SpaceX and Starlink, right? So I guess so it's like, is SpaceX a telecommunication

company or space company? But, you know, Starlink was created, right, to continue funding the development of Starship so that one day, you know, SpaceX and the rest of human kinds can go go to Mars. So we see it as the same way at Eregas and like, yeah, like we are going to apply our technology for some near term defense applications, but at the same time, like, we see ourselves as a space company because like that's why people work here, right? Like it's like, we want to go to space. And if there's a way we can get to space sooner, like amazing. And maybe we can get there sooner, especially now that, now that there's a large your focus on the moon, right?

Now NASA is talking about building a permanent lunar base, and with a permanent lunar base, we need transportation. And I know we'll get to that a bit later, but I was just like, I want to say, like, maybe, like, maybe we're going to be a space top base, too. Right. Exactly. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. So on the, you know, you said, you know, that's why people work here because we want to go to space. I have this theory, this working theory that for a long time, I think based on what your history was that you laid out, were probably similar age enough that were grouped in the same generation of people that came up through our work experience and what our childhood was. And I have this theory that I've rolled out a couple of times where, you know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, it was really not cool to say you were a defense company working on defense things. And then the world has changed now, and there are threats that are different than they were in 2007 and eight and nine when no one in the Bay Area wanted to work on defense products.

Things are different now. And there's new entrants, right? SpaceX is a defense company in a lot of ways. You've got Anderil and these hot companies that are embracing being a defense company. And I wonder if you feel the same thing that people are more okay working in the national security market now. because, and my root part of the theory is that when we were coming up and deciding what we want to do with our lives, pretty much the only example we had were like American imperialism wars. And now 20 years later, we have like Russia invading Ukraine and wars that are happening that look more like traditional wars that happened when we read about in history books,

but weren't there when we were deciding what we want to do with our life. So the context of that shifted. I wonder if you feel that on the workforce side that people are more into working on national security now. Oh, absolutely, right? I mean, not to say that there aren't, like, we don't come across, like, candidates who don't want to work in national security. We do get that, but for the most part, I would say, like, people are a lot more receptive to it.

And I'd say why people are a lot more receptive to it is, like, it's real. Like, you see it on the internet, right? Like video images of, you know, conflicts in other parts of world. And sometimes it does make you think, like, hey, this could, happened to you, like, you know, to my family, like my friends, right? And I was in Poland late last year for a business, for a business trip. And if you recall, like, last fall, Russia allegedly sent, well, mistakenly, quote to quote, right? Allegedly mistakenly. Yeah, exactly, sent drones into Poland. And I wasn't that far away

from Israel. So that was like a just I don't know, like this just this like realization that hey, sometimes like conflicts are maybe closer to us. Yeah, I just, I feel like, you know, it, it became a meme to say the vibe shift and things like that. But I really do think that the 2020s have played a part in that and that the conflicts just look more like the mid-20th century conflicts than they do the early 2000s and and that shifted people's interests. But okay, let's get aside from that, we can go about three hours and turn it into a different podcast. But I want to talk about, so I want to talk about markets with you. I want to talk about

fundamental technology and how that applies. But I do want to for one point to start with, like, why are first stages the problem that you want to fix? Because that's, this is my roots, my root skepticism is that the reusable first stage has been, the thing that has been, it's not easy, but it's become the easy part of the problem of reusable launch. So why do you feel like that's something that if we get rid of that, then a better future follows. And by the way I see it, it's not an either or, right?

I believe, like, there should be reusable rockets, and we should absolutely, like, continue to develop reusable rockets. So I just want to make that very clear, right? But, like, ultimately, like, I think there are other, like, use cases, like, in which, like, we can solve, right, with a, with a electromagnetic launch platform or any or any alternative space launch platform. And with that, that is like, hate responsiveness, right? Like, you know, we want to be able to launch much faster, much quicker, right?

In some ways, like the way I like to look at, you know, the larger rockets, like the Falcon Nines, right? It's like taking a bus. Right. There is a predefined launch schedule, right? And there's also a pre-defined, quote, quote, bus stop drop-off point up in space. And, you know, that's great. Like, we need buses.

But at the same time, what I'm saying is, like, we should also have the Uber or the taxi option where it's a lot more on demand. Now, that being said, like, we're not going to be competing on mass, right? Like, absolutely, like, you know, Falcon 9 and other, like, fully, like, reusable, reusable rocket. are going to be able to carry more mass, right? You know, but for us, like, hey, we just want, like, the quick, like, FedEx delivery, FedEx delivery service to space. So that's the market that we're going after.

That's also refreshing that you say that, because I feel like a lot of people when they propose, here's how I see the future of launcher, like, and we will own all of it. There will be no other competitors, which I always thought is a reductive way to talk about it. So I'm glad that you're open about that. Yeah. Yeah, and I have to say, like, if you look at, like, the companies are developing rockets right now. Like, people are going bigger and bigger, right?

There's actually, next to know, like, besides the electron, right? Like, they're going bigger too, though. So that isn't exactly what I'm saying. So, like, so, like, there is going to be a void for, you know, smaller payloads. And that's where we want to be. Yeah. All right. So on the, on the how this actually comes to market in terms of the, like, let's talk about

the physics side of this at all, right? We've got... I want to understand the scope and scale of the launch rails, if that's how you refer to them, and then placement of those where they might exist, how much of a,

you know, how many of them would you foresee what kind of azimuths would you be targeting the whole, like, the roadmap there. Sure, absolutely. And I think let's talk about like the where, because like we think about that a lot, right? And in the U.S., historically, all launches have been done over the ocean. So that could change in the future, right?

There are certainly some organizations that are pushing for an inline launch option or even like a sea-based launch option. But as of now, right, all launches have been done on continental U.S. like next to the ocean. So, like, that's our parameter for searching for, you know, specific launch site. Now, in terms of, like, orbits that we want to hit, like, like, polar, right, like, would be a, a reasonable orbit for us, just given, like, the target market that we're going after. But that being said, like, maybe, like, no reason why we can't build multiple of these pointing in different direction. So, yeah, so that's, like, that's how we're thinking about about it. And in terms of the size, right, it's going to scale, right? And we're starting off with something small.

So right now, like in our lab, we have a 10-meter, like a roughly 30 feet long launch platform. And we are launching supersonicly, right? So that being said, like, we're continued to like build it up, right, so that we can go faster, launch heavier objects. But, you know, how we're seeing the footprint. of the launcher is like we're going to start off by launching so very small like cube sets right we've had some demand for launching fuel satellite fuel going back to like the national security use case in which our satellites are doing dogfights up in space and they need more fuel and

you know like we could be a supplier of like refueling services right so yeah so we're going to start with something small and then you know scale up over time And so when you're thinking about the way that this flight profile would shape, right? The launch rail that you've got, give me a sense for release angle and speed and some of the metrics that you're targeting on that front. Absolutely. So there's traits that we're still doing. And like we don't, like, let's say that we don't want to lock something in just yet because we want to validate those experimentally. You know, the sharper the launch angle, like, you know, the less time we would have to spend in the,

the atmosphere. Because like, let's talk about like, hey, where are the challenges are going to be technically for this? One is like the heating, right? And the other is going to be the aerodynamics, like from minimizing drag, right? In terms of heating, like, we're built, we're going to build an ablative, ablative vehicle. And material science has come a long ways, right? In the last, I don't know, decade or two.

In fact, if we'd look at the most recent Artemis 2, Artemis 2 like reentry vehicle, I think that we entered Earth at around like 11 kilometers for second and it was able to withstand that heat and the heating for like 10 plus minutes. Right. So we're confident, right, that there is materials out there that can withstand the heat. Right. So we're during this step. And then the second piece around aerodynamics, it's all about how you design your vehicle. Right. Like, you know, it's being able to minimize your coefficient of drag, right, having a higher lift to drag ratio.

So there's like literature online that you can find from like government programs that have some, you know, workable. Let's say that, you know, there's some like example shapes that can get us there. So yeah, so we got our own models that, you know, we're running. But at the same time, like, I think technology has come in long ways, you know, is that we can take advantage of those technologies and be able to, to apply it to space launch. I will also mention, like, hey, the other piece that people like to ask about is like, well, so, like, why now, right?

Like, why no one has done this before? You know, like, how are you different than the rail gun? And we're not building a railgun, I guess, just like to set the table. We've visited the Dahlgren facility where the railgun lives. So like we've seen a, we've actually pressed a launch button on a rail gun before. It's like pretty cool. But yeah, like the way the railgun works is you're feeding massive amount of current over two rails. And there's physical contact between the projectile itself and the two.

rails. And with that, that causes, like, heating. And what's a heating that causes, like, longevity challenges. So very early on at EREA, like you're saying, because they had to replace the rail, right? Yeah. Correct. Yeah, absolutely. So there's limited, like, lifetime on the rail. So at Erega, very early on, we said, like, hey, we want to get around this problem, right? So we are employing magnetic levitation. So there is no touching parts, like nothing touches. Like, we don't generate heat from physical friction. And we've done like thousands of launches in our facility. So it's a durable, durable process.

Now, the other piece I would add is, hey, we are able to leverage all the advancements in power electronics, right? Being able to purchase like off the shelf, like semiconductors, like another power electronics that can work with much higher current and voltages. And that's also the same reason why we're now seeing, we're now seeing like a renaissance and nuclear fusion, right? We've seen companies like raised billions of dollars on a concept, like on like a nuclear fusion concept that existed, like, you know, decades again, right? And why now, right? It's the same thing.

It's just the availability of technology that didn't exist previously and now exist nowadays. I can't get my head around this aspect, though, of another place you should visit also, is there's like the space gun. I think it's like the Barbados or something. There's like a space gun out there, that huge cannon that they used to try to shoot things into space with, worth a Wikipedia rabbit hole at some point. Yeah. Yeah, there's two.

There's another one in Yuma, Arizona. Okay, okay. Yeah, wild rabbitel. So you mentioned, you know, the more vertical that you are launching at, the less atmosphere you have to climb through, but then the less horizontal velocity you have at apogee. And obviously then, you know, inverse is true, right? More horizontal you got more horizontal velocity,

but you're flying through the entire atmosphere. So, like, you know, I think from reading some of the initial articles from announcement last year, whatever that was when you were announcing some fundraising, you were talking about release speeds that were kind of in the realm of like Falcon 9 at Miko. but they're also at 70 kilometers, 60 or 70 kilometers. Whereas, so if you're coming off the rail, if you were, I don't know, what should I be using? Not rail. Rail is wrong.

What should I be saying? I call it launcher. The launcher. Okay. You're coming off the launcher around that speed, but you have 60 kilometers of atmosphere to climb through. Then what kind of horizontal velocity can you sustain for that second stage or whatever to take over at that point? So that was like my previous comment, which is like, hey, like there's going to be a tradeoff, right? The steeper you are, right, the less time you spend in the atmosphere, right, but the less

horizontal velocity you have, right? Or you can go the other way, right, which is like go a very, like, you know, flat climb, right? So you would spend more time in the atmosphere, but then again, you would have more horizontal velocity. So it's a trade between like the angle, the launch speed, right, as well as the, as well as the upper stage rocket. We are, we do have, like, we do need the upper stage rocket to circularize to provide that horizontal velocity. Unless you make the whole thing out of the black box and you launch a launcher and then use the launcher to circularize.

Oh, okay. Okay. So this is my other train of thought then. Like, Earth is the probably second or third worst planet in the solar system for this architecture, right? Like Titan would definitely not work. Venus is pretty rough. Earth is up there. Earth is up high in the power rankings of this sort of architecture.

So why take the approach of going, you know, in looking at your roadmap, you're saying we've got a good defense and hypersonic market that we can target now. Why not skip Earth-based launch and go to in-space deployments as the second market where you're flinging things off the moon base or I saw some mentions of potentially doing maneuvers in space with this sort of technology? like I'm just I'm like nervous for you guys to take on Earth-based launch as the as the second part. So just be clear, right? Like the technologies that we're developing right now can be applied to all of the above, right? Like we're not like we're not going out there and building a launch pad right now.

We're not. We're not. No, we're not. So like ultimately like hey, all of the technology, the core technology that we've developed is being applied and can be applied to all the above, right? Like, you know, whether it be like hypersonic testing, missile defense, right? You talk about like in space logistics as well as like lunar launches. It all depends on the market, right?

That's the other part like of building a business. It's not like just building the tech. It's just like, hey, making sure that there is product market fit. Right. And now going back to my comment earlier about NASA, like, hey, taking on a, a keen interest on the moon. Like, this is a, it's a 2026 thing. Like, it happened in 2026.

Like, if I talked about it last year, I would have been too early. But that being said, right, like, we've developed the technology to enable a mass driver on the moon. In fact, like, we're already half of the speed, launching at half of the speed, required to get from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit. So it's a matter of being ready for like when the right like business opportunity hits. And I think like right now like yes, absolutely. Like we are pursuing the NASA opportunities to put a small like demonstration like launcher on the moon.

Like where you can launch, we can use that to launch payloads back onto Earth, right, or into lunar orbit. or even like a point-to-point transportation on the lunar surface. Because like rovers are great for short distances, but we need a solution on the moon where we can take something from one point to like an extended, over extended distance. And so this could be a solution for point to point. Yeah.

Yeah. Absolutely. So, yeah. So I think once we develop the technology, the possibilities are endless, right? And same goes for you mentioned, like, the point-to-point aside of the orbit-to-orbit transfers, right? So, like, definitely had our conversations with specific groups

within, like, you know, within the Space Force about the concept of being able to send small payloads from one orbit to another by placing our launcher on a host satellite platform, right? especially like again like in national security contacts getting a payload to the end destination quickly matters right so that's a capability that we can enable and yeah again getting payloads places in ways that are that are different than what everyone's sensors are tuned to detect now i find intriguing as well for them for sure absolutely there's a stealth element you know as well as well

Like to your point, although I'm going to say, like, you know, even though like we're not detectable thermally, like we are detectable from a very localized like EMI perspective. To your point, like that's where you talk about, like, hey, sensors that exists. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. Everyone's built sensor networks for the things that people have deployed now. Like the goal is never that we've built the new undetectable thing, but it's like we've built the thing that's a little bit outside the sensor range now and then the sensors get better

and you build a different thing that's a little bit better than that. And you build it's about keeping up with the progression. Yeah, I don't know. I love the way that you talk about this for those other use cases. I just, I cannot and will not get my head around from the ground of Earth. And that's like my main hold up. But then we talk about all these other use cases elsewhere. The lunar one makes so much sense to me because lunar regolith sucks

and you don't want to blow that all over your base every time that you take off with rocket engines. So doing a thing that would be dustless would be strongly preferred. So even if it's, you know, a thing to get you away from the base, where then you can use rocket engines to propel yourself through space, that would be beneficial to our moon base concerns. So there are things about the lunar environment that your technology really plays well with and things about the Earth environment that I just can't get my head around. Not to say, like, I doubt you guys will ever figure this thing out.

It's just like, when I'm looking from a space lens, I'm like, I want this thing on the moon tomorrow, and it sounds awesome for that. Sure, absolutely. And I think all comes back to enabling technology. right? Like I think that's, you know, why, you know, we're able to do what we're doing right now. And I think, like, if we, like, project, like, also, like, what's coming, like, you know, next, like, five, 10 years, like, we're going to have a plethora of, like, you know, newer materials, you know, to work with as well. But yeah, like, that being said, like, I'm very excited about the use case on the moon. Like, super excited about it. I, I think it's a great solution. or as you mentioned, like not needing to kick up, like, lunar dust, which is very abrasive, right? And also just not needing to synthesize rocket fuel on a different celestial body. So, like, all we land is just on the surface to then take back up.

Yeah, there's a beneficial nature to it in those environments. I mean, the other aspect of this all that I really like, about your approach is that, you know, I talk to a lot of people in the industry and I kind of grade them on, this person has, like you stated at the outset, a sense for, these are the markets that exist today that I can use to make progress in these areas. And this is the technology that exists that I can use to make progress in those markets. So let's match these up well. Versus there are many companies out there that are like, we do this one thing. And if the world does not go exactly our way, then I don't know what we'll do. But like, we'll pivot to AI at that

point. Like, there's, you know, all birds or whatever. It's like, we make this and it doesn't work out. We're going to fold entirely versus having a sense for, we have a core set of technology and use cases and we will try to adapt to the markets that come and go. Exactly. And we've already had like good success with, as I mentioned, like, the hypersonic testing front as well as like the counter UAS and missile defense front. So like, you know, we're, we're happy with like, you know, where where we're at, right? Obviously, like, we want to continue to develop the technology for more space-based applications. So in that, in that lens, can you tell us the locations that this might exist first outside of your own facility, or is that something that is going to be stuck within

the set of logos that are on your website, and I'll need to go back to the Pentagon to ask them? So, so I guess like some of this may be public already, but we are working on building and outdoor hypersonic accelerator for testing. So we do have strong interest from multiple groups within the DOD. We have started the search, although we have not down-selected yet. So that's why, like, I won't talk about the locations, but like for hypersonic testing, like, we are looking for a site that is flat, long, not subject to flooding. So. And you're making a 20th to start here, maybe.

We are good to go. we're on the map. It's the desert. Everybody, it's the desert. We love the desert. You can pick your favorite. We have a couple of good options. I mean, the desert, you know, you said people looking at overland launch capabilities.

There are spots in the desert that have quite a bit of downrange with nobody there. So, you know, that's, so would there be, all right, I'm going to put on my hat of, I fully believe y'all will launch a thing from ground to orbit for a minute. Is there, would there be a difference in? the limitations that you might have with the downrange aspect there where now we need several hundred miles of downrange where we can have a rocket blow up or having a board happen and not kill anyone essentially.

So with the physics of your launch capability, limit your downrange distance that you need to care about and get cleared by the government. I think, yeah, in reality, it's like, hey, working with the FAA on what they consider as, like below the minimum, it was a probability of loss. So there's the calculation,

and I would suspect, like, you know, some of that, the calculation will be a function of the amount of rocket propellants, right? Like, carried on board. So there's going to be some. Yeah, but I don't, I don't,

like, I think, I think the hurdle, like, of having an inland launch site, like, we have to overcome that hurdle first, right? And I don't, there are people working on it behind the scenes. I mean, like, you look at China and you look at like Russia, like, they launch inland.

I mean, they definitely do inland long sites. Yeah. I would never hold them up as a good example of inland long sites, but they do it. They certainly do it. So yeah. So yeah. So anyway, so like, yeah, absolutely. So it's been done.

So. Yeah. Awesome. Well, this is fun. I've enjoyed the conversation. I like how you can roll with this stuff, even if you're talking to a skeptic who really wants to buy one of these on the moon. I appreciate it. But you know what? Like, if everyone believes that something can be done, it would have already been done. Right. And I like to just think back at like Elon and what he said

about the number of people who then believe him. Like, about reusable. You'll never land a rocket. Okay, you landed one, but you won't reuse it. Okay, you reused it once, but could you do it 10 times? and they're pushing up on 700 rocket landings or something. So, yeah, it's goalpost movers will always move the goalposts. That's for sure. And maybe I'm one of them. And I would love to be just a golf post mover. And one day, have you back on to be like, you did it.

Deal. Yeah, awesome. All right. Anything you want to plug? I don't know if sometimes people like to plug if they're hiring, people in the area, et cetera. We're always hiring, I guess. Like, it's, we have like job posting this on a website. So yeah, please check it out.

I know we build cool shit here. I got to come visit. I'm due for a California visit. Yeah, please do so. Yeah, we host visitors often. So yeah, let me know. Awesome. Can I push the button?

Absolutely. And by the way, I will say I've actually never pressed a button on a launcher. Oh. So can I get in the line before you do? Yeah, you should probably do. Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you so much, Winnie. Thanks for joining me. Awesome. Well, hey, thanks for having me, Anthony. Nice talking to you. Thanks again to Winnie for coming on and being so game to chop it up with me here. Always fun.

To do that with somebody who's game to talk, you all know. I like a guest. That likes to talk. So we'll follow along with them as they make their way in the industry. But for now, that's what I've got for you. I want to say thank you to everyone who supports main engine cutoff over at main engine cutoff.com slash support. There are 32 executive producers who made this episode possible. Thanks to Steve, Ryan, Matt from Built, Russell, Joel, David, Chris, Joe Kim, Fred, Pat, Matt, Theo and Violet, Natasha Saccoz, Donald Warren, Miles O'Brien, Will and Lars, from Agile, Frank Jan, Tim Dodd, the everyday astronaut, Josh from Impulse, Stealth Julian Lee, Eunice, the Astrogators at SEE, and four anonymous executive producers. Thank you all so much for the support for making this show possible. I could not do it without

you. This is a 100% listener-supported show. It has been since the beginning. could not do this without all of you. So thank you all so much for the support. Miko headlines available over at Mainasia cutoff.com slash support. If you jump in there, you can get my thoughts last Friday as the IPO was kicking off as when I did the last headline show for the IPO for SpaceX, obviously. I don't know why I felt the need to clarify that. You obviously know what I'm talking about. So jump in. You get access to that. I do that show every week to 10 days, depending on how much is going on in the space world, meaning if there's not a lot of stories or if there's a lot of stories, sometimes it takes me a while to catch up. But I

read through everything going on in the industry for you. Filter it down to just the things you need to know about. Great way to support the show. Stay up with the news. Check it out. I think you'll like it. If you don't hit me up, I'll send you your $3 back or whatever. It's a money-back guarantee on Miko headlines.

I really do think it's worth it. But for now, thank you all so much for listening. Thanks for the support. I'll talk to you soon.